Luke 23:17 — the Passover custom that explains itself
Modern Bibles that omit Luke 23:17 follow reading A; reading B includes it. The variant is whether Luke states the feast-release custom here.
What the APB prints.
Every witness, on the record.
What a blind committee did here.
The APB's translation committee works blind: it is never told it is translating the Bible, never given a book name or a verse number, and it never sees the witnesses above. Whatever it did at this verse, it did on the language alone — and its record is public.
“Included from the Faithlife/SBLGNT apparatus at Luke 23:16 as a traditional verse addition. Witnesses: RP.”
The blind committee’s record treats the line as a textual supplement. Its note says, “Included from the Faithlife/SBLGNT apparatus at Luke 23:16 as a traditional verse addition.” The record names RP as the witness, and the APB prints the material as Luke 23:17. Its audit verdict for the pericope is clean.
The case for each reading.
If borrowed from Mark
Reading A leaves no separate statement of a feast custom between Luke 23:16 and the crowd’s cry. WH reads ἀπολύσω, and its witness note says that verse 16 joins directly to verse 18. The raw apparatus likewise presents WH with the reading at verse 16, while placing the additional verse with RP. On this presentation, the narrative can proceed without an explicit explanation of why release is under discussion. The stated issue is whether the explanation was borrowed from Mark: Mark and Matthew explain the Barabbas custom, whereas Luke’s explanation appears only in later manuscripts and, in some, after verse 19. That arrangement supplies the case for treating the added sentence as a later explanatory addition.
If Luke wrote it
Reading B supplies an explicit explanation for the release mentioned in Luke 23:16: Ἀνάγκην δέ εἶχεν ἀπολύειν αὐτοῖς κατὰ ἑορτὴν ἕνα. RP prints this wording as verse 17, so the custom stands in the narrative before the crowd’s cry. The sentence makes the feast setting and the release of one person explicit rather than leaving the connection unstated. The APB also prints the sentence as Luke 23:17. The case for B is therefore the presence of this complete explanation in RP and its direct fit with the preceding release language. The question remains whether Luke wrote it there or whether it entered the text as an explanation familiar from Mark and Matthew.
The packet leaves unresolved whether the feast explanation belonged at this point or was added later. It also reports that, in some manuscripts, the wording appears after verse 19, without identifying those manuscripts. Either way, Luke 23:16 still contains the release language, while reading B makes the feast custom explicit. No doctrine is identified in the supplied material as depending on this variation.
Asked plainly.
Why is Luke 23:17 missing from some modern Bibles?
Where an edition follows WH, verse 16 joins directly to verse 18. RP instead prints the feast-release explanation as verse 17.
What does the disputed verse add?
It states that one was to be released to them at the feast, explaining the release language in Luke 23:16.
Did the site’s translation committee include Luke 23:17?
Yes. Its record describes the line as a traditional verse addition from the apparatus and names RP as its witness.
More places where the manuscripts argue.
Witness readings for critical editions are quoted from the SBLGNT apparatus (CC BY 4.0); Hebrew text from the Westminster Leningrad Codex (Open Scriptures Hebrew Bible). Readings of ancient manuscripts and versions are cited as published scholarly fact with their sources linked above. Nothing on this page declares a winner — the evidence is the point.
Weigh it yourself.
The registry doesn't tell you which reading is true. It puts every witness on one page, shows what a blind committee did with the same language, and leaves the verdict where it belongs — with the reader.